Jake Lamotta vs Carl Froch

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by Nagabilly, Sep 14, 2012.

  1. PowerPuncher

    PowerPuncher Loyal Member Full Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2004
    Messages:
    42,723
    Likes Received:
    279
    I'm not sure how accurate that is, but even if so, Froch has a far far lower bodyfat percent so is naturally much bigger. Agreed on Froch not being a great in fighter, but his uppercut against a smaller pressure fighter would find a home
     
  2. Flea Man

    Flea Man มวยสากล

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2008
    Messages:
    82,426
    Likes Received:
    1,478
    His uppercut is horrendous, like a Shoryuken.
     
  3. LittleRed

    LittleRed Boxing Junkie Full Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2012
    Messages:
    8,850
    Likes Received:
    246
  4. PetethePrince

    PetethePrince Slick & Redheaded Full Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2009
    Messages:
    28,760
    Likes Received:
    86
    He did not lack "mobility" as Robinson called him the fighter that gave him more pressure than any other man. This is not a fighter that lacked "mobility." LaMotta was past his prime when he became MW champ. His prime was actually around 46-49.

    Froch is maybe too big and rangey. However, seeing an old Johnson give Froch some issues with his activity. I can imagine LaMotta out-hustling Froch somewhat easily. LaMotta fought Lloyd Marshall. Marshall was a decently framed MW and awhile LaMotta lost he surged well to make it a fight. I don't know the stylistic implications as there's no film of Marshall (None that I know of anyway) (Marshall is clearly superior than Froch obviously).

    Both men are capable of winning.
     
  5. Nightcrawler

    Nightcrawler Boxing Addict Full Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2011
    Messages:
    4,432
    Likes Received:
    33
    i see your point, fair enough:good